[stevewig]

This is what happens when government starts answering to individuals rather than populations.
What you have in Norquist is a dictator (someone who isn't elected but controls what the government does).

Even those who agree with the outcome should disagree with the way that it was obtained!

(this is off-topic so I am bowing gracefully out!)

[Wheatfield]

Even those who agree with the outcome should disagree with the way that it was obtained!

Sadly, we seem to be entering an era where the ends justifies the means, however odious they might be. This sort of short sightedness never has a good ending.

[Nesster]

Well, Norquist has his power because there's money and organization to get out the primary votes. A minority opinion can have an outsize influence when it captures a party's nominating process. His power comes to an end if he no longer has such influence over the elections - which can happen if the party starts to appeal to a larger audience OR some other narrow and unaffiliated special interest succeeds in also affecting primary outcomes.

[les3547]

So what about you...are you a lefty or a righty or somewhere in between?

Unfortunately consciousness is easily trapped by the polar nature of the brain, which tends to make us turn to one side for every (or most) choices. When that happens in politics we say someone is conservative (constricted) or liberal (opened). Anyone who limits themselves to constricted or opened choices is bound to conflict with reality. Reality swings through the whole range, and so accordingly the range of our choices needs to reflect the workings of reality. That is why I hope I never fall victim to being a liberal or conservative, or stuck in any polarized condition.

To answer your question I'll fall back on what I've learned from studying Chinese polarity philosophy, which is that the ideal is to never have a fixed or permanent position anywhere, but only to provisionally "rest" in the middle because that's normally where balance is found. When reality calls for concentration/constriction then we move there, and when it calls for opening, then we move that direction. So the answer to "are you a lefty or a righty or somewhere in between" is all of it, depending on what reality calls for, because any fixed position -- left, right or middle -- will cause loss of synchronicity with reality.

---

Last edited by les3547; 11-23-2011 at 09:47 PM.

[redrockcoulee]

So what about you...are you a lefty or a righty or somewhere in between?

A Joe Clark Red Tory. More liberal than I used to be on social issues. A mixed economy believer and that private enterprise is usually but not always the best solution to the market however corporations need rules and regulations just the same as the rest of us. Can never figure out how setting rules or regulations on corportations is communisms but regulating people is law and order.

Although I like to think that I look at each issue on its own merit I tend to side with the left more than the right however I have no problem with disagreeing with the left (Liberals or NDP or Green) or backing the right (PC or might even agree with the federal Conservatives on an issue (sort of choked on that as I think Harper is the worse thing that happened to the Conservative party)) when I think they are right. I believe I live in a society and therefore not only have to act like I am part of society but expect my governments and corporations to do so as well.

Norquist reminds me of the character in The Fountainhead, think Tooney or something like that. He controlled who was in the inner circle who decided on things and nobody knew how he got his power or what you had to do to be in or out. The GOP seems to be such Ayn Rand fans but this character was not the hero, Howard Roarh or whatever his name was.

[SteveM]

Unfortunately consciousness is easily trapped by the polar nature of the brain, which tends to make us turn to one side for every (or most) choices. When that happens in politics we say someone is conservative (constricted) or liberal (opened).

Good points. I often wonder if the blatant generalizations of the right or left is based on a desire to over simplify an issue. I find it quite easy to poke holes in arguments that I feel are too far to the right or the left using the "then what?" question. I often feel that it is more difficult to determine a solution that is "in the middle" as one needs to think through the cause and effect of the action one is proposing.

To answer your question I'll fall back on what I've learned from studying Chinese polarity philosophy, which is that the ideal is to never have a fixed or permanent position anywhere, but only to provisionally "rest" in the middle because that's normally where balance is found. When reality calls for concentration/constriction then we move there, and when it calls for opening, then we move that direction. So the answer to "are you a lefty or a righty or somewhere in between" is all of it, depending on what reality calls for, because any fixed position -- left, right or middle -- will cause loss of synchronicity with reality.

If I understand you correctly......this means someone needs to think about each situation and determine the correct strategy....ignoring the left or right ideology as a simple solution.

. Can never figure out how setting rules or regulations on corportations is communisms but regulating people is law and order.

Although I like to think that I look at each issue on its own merit I tend to side with the left more than the right.

I believe I live in a society and therefore not only have to act like I am part of society but expect my governments and corporations to do so as well.

Some great quotes. You say you side more with the left than the right, (I do as well), but based on who's definition of left/right? Just like Communism and Fascism means very different things to different people, perhaps "the right" does as well. I have noticed a number of complaints lately that the media is controlled by the "left". That leads me to wonder who the "right" are?

The Christian Right?
The Tea Party?
The GOP?

Perhaps the media is fully representing all perspectives, including the right. Perhaps the most vocal have swung so far to one extreme that they no longer represent or reflect the right wing segment of the population? Perhaps "the left" really represents both left and the right.....

This might not be totally reflected during election time as the moderate right wing will feel they have no other alternative than to vote right, but they are no longer represented appropriately by anyone......except the left.

[redrockcoulee]

Some great quotes. You say you side more with the left than the right, (I do as well), but based on who's definition of left/right? Just like Communism and Fascism means very different things to different people, perhaps "the right" does as well. I have noticed a number of complaints lately that the media is controlled by the "left". That leads me to wonder who the "right" are?

I have read only a couple of intro political science texts in the past but from them and just general listening and reading I think that Canada is fairly normal in where the centre is. So I guess I would put left as the more left half of the current Liberal Party and perhaps on many issues to the right of the NDP but not on all. In American terms I think where I think I am right wing they might say a total communist. In all seriouslness I would put myself to the left of their current president in both social and econoimical issues as I see him as a moderate conservative very close to the centre but never really going across to the left. Mulroney may also have been to the left of Obama and I really think Peter Lougheed was. I lived in BC during the Bennett and Vandesam period and I am definetly to the left of the greenhouse man but then who was not.
In the US the right is all the GOP and much if not most of the Democrats. In Canada the Conservative Party, most of the Provincial Progressive Conservative Parties and at least half of the Liberals. And Don Cherry.